Story: How should Pac-12 reduce revenue gap with other P5 conferences.

[ScottHood]

Larry Scott said Wed. that the significant revenue gap between the P12 and other P5 conferences, especially the SEC and B10, could be eliminated in 2024 when the P12 negotiates new TV deals.In short, he preached patience.

Story: https://sports.yahoo.com/the-pac-12...eryone-agrees-on-how-to-fix-it-035513173.html

 

[BiggsCoug]

IMO....

If the rest of Power 5 isn't going to be 9 league games, go with 8. Stop trying to fight it.

Schedule non conference games with return trips only.

No FCS opponents.

Get as many teams into bowl eligibility as possible.

Stop worrying about having a national brand when you don't have a regional brand. The PAC 12 needs to focus on filling their own stadiums and building the brands of their schools on the West Coast first. Once that is done, worry about national branding. Until then, national branding comes by winning bowl games and play off games.

No more night kick offs. The PAC 12 has sold itself out to get night games and fill scheduling. If no one on the East Coast is watching what is the point? Again, worry about your region first.

Fire Larry Scott. He isn't getting it done. Very few athletic directors get to hire 3 head football coaches. How many times is this guy gonna negotiate TV deals???

There comes a point when either schools don't know how or do know how but choose not to.... that goes for marketing, branding, farming donors, etc. Figure out which you are and then fix it across the board.

It will take all schools pulling in the same direction to get the PAC 12 brand where they want it to be. It starts by focusing on you and not being sold a bill of goods.

 

[fingerdisco]

Larry Scott said Wed. that the significant revenue gap between the P12 and other P5 conferences, especially the SEC and B10, could be eliminated in 2024 when the P12 negotiates new TV deals.In short, he preached patience.

Story: https://sports.yahoo.com/the-pac-12...eryone-agrees-on-how-to-fix-it-035513173.html

2024 probably also coincides with Tennis Club Larry’s retirement date. “Patience, everyone...”

 

[COUGinNCW]

IMO....

If the rest of Power 5 isn't going to be 9 league games, go with 8. Stop trying to fight it.

Schedule non conference games with return trips only.

No FCS opponents.

Get as many teams into bowl eligibility as possible.

Stop worrying about having a national brand when you don't have a regional brand. The PAC 12 needs to focus on filling their own stadiums and building the brands of their schools on the West Coast first. Once that is done, worry about national branding. Until then, national branding comes by winning bowl games and play off games.

No more night kick offs. The PAC 12 has sold itself out to get night games and fill scheduling. If no one on the East Coast is watching what is the point? Again, worry about your region first.

Fire Larry Scott. He isn't getting it done. Very few athletic directors get to hire 3 head football coaches. How many times is this guy gonna negotiate TV deals???

There comes a point when either schools don't know how or do know how but choose not to.... that goes for marketing, branding, farming donors, etc. Figure out which you are and then fix it across the board.

It will take all schools pulling in the same direction to get the PAC 12 brand where they want it to be. It starts by focusing on you and not being sold a bill of goods.

10 league games makes more sense than 9. Half the teams play an extra road game so The deck is double stacked against you.

 

[kayak15]

How about we move the conference headquarters away from the highest priced real estate area on the coast and place it somewhere cheaper like Sacramento or Davis? That should be a savings of at least a million a year right there.

 

[dgibbons]

2024 probably also coincides with Tennis Club Larry’s retirement date. “Patience, everyone...”

In other words, Larry gets the Pac-12 even/close to even with everyone else around 2024, then "retires" before the Pac-12 falls way behind again.

Which results in the Pac-12 never really being even.

 

[dgibbons]

How about we move the conference headquarters away from the highest priced real estate area on the coast and place it somewhere cheaper like Sacramento or Davis? That should be a savings of at least a million a year right there.

Vegas would be a logical spot too.

 

[BiggsCoug]

10 league games makes more sense than 9. Half the teams play an extra road game so The deck is double stacked against you.

If the PAC 12 played all 11 league teams with 1 non league games I would be fine with it.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

8 league games dilutes the brand somewhat as opposed to 9 but offers the opportunity for more games that are likely wins. In short, more marginal teams would qualify for a bowl. That probably means 1 more bowl team each year (and on rare occasions, 2 more) from the league. That has both gross revenue (probably not net revenue for a minor bowl, but certainly gross revenue) and brand recognition benefit.

My personal view is that unless all P5 leagues agree to 9 games, we should move to the lowest common denominator just like the rest and play 8. What would make the most sense to me is for both P5 teams to not get an FCS game, and all P5 teams to schedule 9 league games. That would have to be a mutual agreement, and without strong leadership, that won't happen.

 

[fingerdisco]

In other words, Larry gets the Pac-12 even/close to even with everyone else around 2024, then "retires" before the Pac-12 falls way behind again.

Which results in the Pac-12 never really being even.

I don’t even expect him to do anything,just sit on his thumb in his penthouse for 5 years and then say “sayonara” when folks start asking where’s the beef.

 

[BiggsCoug]

8 league games dilutes the brand somewhat as opposed to 9 but offers the opportunity for more games that are likely wins. In short, more marginal teams would qualify for a bowl. That probably means 1 more bowl team each year (and on rare occasions, 2 more) from the league. That has both gross revenue (probably not net revenue for a minor bowl, but certainly gross revenue) and brand recognition benefit.

My personal view is that unless all P5 leagues agree to 9 games, we should move to the lowest common denominator just like the rest and play 8. What would make the most sense to me is for both P5 teams to not get an FCS game, and all P5 teams to schedule 9 league games. That would have to be a mutual agreement, and without strong leadership, that won't happen.

The brand is already low. I dunno how playing 8 instead of 9 makes it worse. A case could be made for 8 league games not hurting the brand of the SEC and ACC.

The ability to go 2-6 in league play and 4-0 against non BCS teams would help the PAC 12 get teams into bowls. Which would help revenue. Which would help exposure. Which would help overall.

At this point I think you either come up with a plan that gets you where you wanna go OR you follow the blueprint that the SEC uses.

Play 4 league home games, play all your non conference games at home, stack the deck in favor of your conference and call it good. Stop trying to go against the grain.

Seriously, 4 road games per year lol. Depending on how you scheduled you might not leave campus for the first 5 weeks lol.

How many games can a frosh play in before they lose a year? Is it 4? Shoot... You could open with 4 non conference games against non Power 5 teams... Call it a pre season schedule... You'll have your entire roster on the sideline because you're not limited to a travel roster.. You can rotate kids in and out of the game.. You'll know going into week 5 who your guys are and aren't... Your recruiting pitch is that all frosh are gonna be on the field the first 4 games of every year... lol

Why try and forge a new path??? Just go with what's working for the SEC.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

We absolutely need to go back to only playing 8 conference games if we want our conference to be relevant nationally. There is zero reasonable argument for going to 10 or 11 conference games. As for FCS teams, anyone who says that we need to quit playing FCS teams needs to take a look at the SEC and rethink their argument. We are 10 years behind them right now. People love to talk about cupcake schedules and how Power 5 teams shouldn't play FCS opponents, but that only matters when the Power 5 team struggles in match-ups against other Power 5 teams. Total number of wins, regardless of the opponent, is the most important measuring stick. The SEC feasts on FCS teams, particularly in November when they essentially get an extra bye week. Nobody complains about that too loudly as long as they are winning the big games. If we hadn't gacked against USC and UW, the Cougs would have been in the CFP last year. UW made the CFP with an FCS team on their schedule.

The only downside that I see to the discussion about FCS teams and the potential for them to be in November is that virtually guarantees that WSU is going to have a home game with terrible attendance late in the season but I can live with that. If we are going to have a game where the fans are going to phone it in and not show up....let it be a game that nobody in the entire country cares about.

Dropping to 8 conference games means that our aggregate conference record can improve by 6 wins per year. Last year, does a win over a scrub instead of a loss to USC change the way our season plays out? Not that we'd want to see it, but does UW get into the CFP in 2017 if they don't lose to ASU and they finish 12-1? Alternatively, does USC beat Utah in 2016 (instead of losing by 4) if they get another breather game instead of getting stuck playing Stanford early? If USC wins the Pac-12 at 12-1 that year, do they get into the CFP instead of UW? In 2015, what if Oregon gets a confidence building win against a scrub instead of losing to Utah, that leads them to beat us and allows them to make the playoff? Getting teams into the CFP and overall wins are how a conference's success is measured.

Of course, that paragraph above is the reminder that you need to be careful what you wish for. The Pac-12 being successful and respected doesn't necessarily help WSU. For all of the talk about being respected as a conference, is it worth the risk?

 

[425cougfan]

We absolutely need to go back to only playing 8 conference games if we want our conference to be relevant nationally. There is zero reasonable argument for going to 10 or 11 conference games. As for FCS teams, anyone who says that we need to quit playing FCS teams needs to take a look at the SEC and rethink their argument. We are 10 years behind them right now. People love to talk about cupcake schedules and how Power 5 teams shouldn't play FCS opponents, but that only matters when the Power 5 team struggles in match-ups against other Power 5 teams. Total number of wins, regardless of the opponent, is the most important measuring stick. The SEC feasts on FCS teams, particularly in November when they essentially get an extra bye week. Nobody complains about that too loudly as long as they are winning the big games. If we hadn't gacked against USC and UW, the Cougs would have been in the CFP last year. UW made the CFP with an FCS team on their schedule.

The only downside that I see to the discussion about FCS teams and the potential for them to be in November is that virtually guarantees that WSU is going to have a home game with terrible attendance late in the season but I can live with that. If we are going to have a game where the fans are going to phone it in and not show up....let it be a game that nobody in the entire country cares about.

Dropping to 8 conference games means that our aggregate conference record can improve by 6 wins per year. Last year, does a win over a scrub instead of a loss to USC change the way our season plays out? Not that we'd want to see it, but does UW get into the CFP in 2017 if they don't lose to ASU and they finish 12-1? Alternatively, does USC beat Utah in 2016 (instead of losing by 4) if they get another breather game instead of getting stuck playing Stanford early? If USC wins the Pac-12 at 12-1 that year, do they get into the CFP instead of UW? In 2015, what if Oregon gets a confidence building win against a scrub instead of losing to Utah, that leads them to beat us and allows them to make the playoff? Getting teams into the CFP and overall wins are how a conference's success is measured.

Of course, that paragraph above is the reminder that you need to be careful what you wish for. The Pac-12 being successful and respected doesn't necessarily help WSU. For all of the talk about being respected as a conference, is it worth the risk?

Your last paragraph is interesting ... I've made similar points. If I had to choose between a "strong" Pac-12 with, say, two non-WSU top-10 teams, or a "weak" Pac-12 with solid overall depth but no elite teams, as presently is the case, I'd take the latter every time.

That helps WSU's chances of winning the conference, which is what I want to see more than anything else. Some undoubtedly will say that we should prefer a "strong" Pac-12 where WSU is one of those dominant teams, or is a strong enough third or fourth team that it can take down one of those top teams and win the conference, and of course I would prefer that as well, but in looking at probabilities and considering the realities of WSU's situation/resources, it is best-situated to succeed in an environment in which its top rivals in the conference are solid but not legitimate top-5, or even top-10, types of squads.

The media, Pac-12 brass, and virtually everyone else involved with the Pac-12 would prefer a "strong" Pac-12 with one or two dominant teams (preferably in LA, Eugene, and/or Seattle), and if we know WSU isn't winning the conference anyway in a given year, I'd prefer that too. But if looking at any given year without knowing the results in advance, I'll take the "weak" Pac-12 from the perspective of giving WSU the best chance to be the standard-bearer for the conference, even if it isn't the one Larry Scott or the media want.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

425, I appreciate the way that you framed the discussion, and I think I have to agree with your preference. Sure, other fans might make a legitimate case for the "strong" league, and I could understand and respect their viewpoint. But becoming a conference dominated by two or maybe three schools is not a path I'd like to see going forward for the PAC.

And the best way that I see for the PAC to move in that direction, absent cooperation by other leagues, is to go to 8 league games.